Staunton sets, height of the pieces (rook and knight)

Sort:
Krames

Am I the only one who HATES when the rook is taller than the knight? I have a Collector set, actually more than one, from HOS and I really like the shapes, except for the height issue . . .

Pawnerai

A Staunton set where the Rook is taller than the Knight is uncommon. Do you know of many others besides the HoS Collector Series? Looking at it now, it doesn't bother me at all. I kinda like it. 



It looks like HoS "fixed" this with the follow-up Collector II Series. I actually prefer the first one with the taller Rook.

https://www.houseofstaunton.com/the-collector-ii-series-luxury-chess-pieces-4-0-king.html

Krames
@MCH I bought it years ago, definitely more than 5. I have another set that bought at around the same time w a slightly different knight, and it’s taller than the corresponding rook :) I actually need some help identifying the set. One of the knights has a ‘broken ear’ and I’m wondering if HOS will replace it. I don’t know the name of the set, I’ll post a pic tomorrow……
dave_westwood

I learned chess using my uncle's Windsor Castle chess pieces. So I prefer sets with rooks slightly taller than knights.

TheOneCalledMichael

I only have seen where the knight is shorter than the rook in BCC popular sets. I also prefer the knights taller than the rooks yes.

Krames

The set was purchased in 2012, boxwood / rosewood Collector Series, 3 inch King -I have a nice wooden box with the set info on the bottom. I also have a Collector set with ebony dark pieces and those rooks are shorter than the knights. . . . Maybe I bought that one at a different time, I really don't remember. I've been using the rosewood set, but I think I'm going to put it away in favor of the ebony, I like the shorter rooks . . .

JoPublic
HOS appointed AIW who made their first collectors series however it seemed the proportions were way out ; the Bishop was also very large in comparison.

It seems their current manufacturing has it much better
ZIMBABWAEED1989

The Chessbazaar Richard Whitty chess pieces are one of my 3 favorite sets.  They all have large, tall rooks.  The king is 3.75", the rook is a tall 2.7" ,, the knight is 2.5" tall. I use a board with 2" squares.  The rook was the most powerfull piece for more than a thousand years.  It still is the second most powerfull piece.  I like tall, robust rooks . I dislike short, small rooks  . The size of the piece should be determined by it,s relative strength.  

Krames
@Zimbabwaeed - I like that logic, I just don’t like the look of it on the board. I kind of wish I did, Bc I do like the logic
EfimLG47

In 1900, the British Chess Company issued their last two designs, a reissue of the Imperial Chessmen and the Improved Royal Chessmen. One of the distinguishing features of the latter was that they turned away from the customary approach of making the pieces linearly smaller starting from the king. The British Chess Company rather pursued the approach of aligning the size of the pieces with their playing value, which led to a clear enlargement of the rooks to signal their higher playing value compared to the knights and bishops.

KnightsForkCafe

The old Windsor Castle sets had Rooks taller than the Knight. I personally hate Knights being shorter than the Rooks. However as long as the tip of the mane is above the Rook. I'm good with that. Actually it's my personal favorite of proportions between the Knights & Rooks.